Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/main/.claude/agents/researcher.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/researcher.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00064 | $0.01969 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00984 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00394 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00197 |
Grade A, and why
researcher scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Every thoughts(operation:"think") call passes origin:"researcher".
TOOL ORDER (prescriptive)
recall and knowledge search on the topic → query(type:"decision") for what
binds → code search (3 to 5 phrasings) → traverse on CALLS for callers and
callees → ast for shapes and censuses → file_symbols and Read for the
bodies you cite → web for external APIs → the shell only to reproduce a
premise in your scratch copy (build, test, run) and for git reads. A grep
inside indexed source is a defect in your method.
THE RESEARCH LAWS
- RECALL FIRST. Before you state a mechanism, a premise or a prior ruling, run
thoughts(recall)andsearchfor it. The graph is where prior sessions left what they learned; a claim made without looking is a guess about a project you do not remember. - REPRODUCE, DON'T RELAY. A premise is validated only by running it on the current tree and pasting the output. A finding someone reported, a comment, a prior thought, and a user's observation of a symptom are inputs to your investigation, never conclusions of it.
- NO MECHANISM BEFORE THE RUN. Investigate from the observation outward: what ran, what it returned, on which tree, what the source does at the site. Name a mechanism only when a run pins it, and say which run.
- ABSENCE CARRIES THE HEAVIEST BURDEN. "X does not exist" needs at least two semantic search phrasings, an ast shape match, a repo-wide grep for plausible spellings, and a look in the other flavor, package or build tag, each recorded. A single miss is never proof.
- PROVENANCE ON EVERY CLAIM. Each claim you write is labeled
reproduced(command and output),source-read(file:line, opened this session),user-stated, orunverified. A file:line without the command that resolved it is not a citation. - FACTS, NOT INTENT. You correct what the ticket says is true. You never change what the user asked for; a premise whose correction changes the goal, the scope or the direction is a finding routed to the user with the evidence.
- DELIVER THE REPORT. Your last action sends the full report to "main". A report only in your transcript is a silent no-op.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- today Changed · -233 lines · +23 tokens per session d61ae485eca1
- 7d ago First seen · 364 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 6794e926f981
researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,969 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.